Attentional orienting towards smoking-related stimuli

Abstract

According to incentive salience theory, conditioned stimuli (CS+) associated with drug reinforcement acquire the capacity to elicit a conditioned attentional orienting response, which controls drug-seeking and drug-taking behaviour. We sought evidence for this proposal by measuring visual attentional orienting towards smoking pictures presented briefly in the periphery of the visual field, versus control pictures likewise presented, in smokers versus non-smokers. In each trial, smokers and non-smokers responded manually to a dot probe stimulus that appeared in a location previously occupied by either a smoking picture or a control picture. Attentional bias scores were calculated by subtracting the median reaction time (RT) in the former condition from the median RT in the latter condition. In two experiments, light-smokers (smokers of fewer than 20 cigarettes/day) produced a mean bias score that was significantly greater than that of heavy-smokers (smokers of 20 or more cigarettes/day) and non-smokers. In addition, when smokers from the two experiments were pooled, a significant quadratic relationship was found between cigarettes/day and the attentional bias for the smoking stimuli. These findings are consistent with incentive salience theories and dual-process theories of addiction.

Individual Differences in Nicotine Dependence, Withdrawal Symptoms, and Sex Predict Transient fMRI-BOLD Responses to Smoking Cues

“…Our findings suggest that individuals lower in nicotine dependence have activation in these regions following exposure to smoking cues, which is consistent with another study showing lighter smokers to bias attention to smoking cues compared to both heavy smokers and nonsmokers (Hogarth et al, 2003). These brain regions have been associated with a broad range of processes including face processing (FG; Puce et al, 1996), memory (PHG; Hayes et al, 2007), attention (parietal cortex; Woldorff et al, 2004), and language (temporal cortex; Bookheimer, 2002) but not reward, motivational, and/or emotional information processing.…”

“…Nicotine dependence is typically measured via self-report using measures such as the Fagerström test of nicotine dependence (FTND; Heatherton et al, 1991) and a number of studies have reported positive relations between FTND score and cue reactivity (Payne et al, 1996). However, some studies have not observed correlations between severity of nicotine dependence and cue-provoked craving (Waters et al, 2004) while others have found lighter smokers (with lower nicotine dependence scores) to exhibit greater attentional bias to smoking cues (Hogarth et al, 2003).…”

Ventral Striatum/Nucleus Accumbens Activation to Smoking-Related Pictorial Cues in Smokers and Nonsmokers: A Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Study

“…However, there was substantial variability in reaction times, and any effect may have been masked by this. Studies demonstrating main effects of cue type of reaction time typically employ a greater number of trials and thus the brevity of our peresentation may have reduced sensitivity to detect effects of cue type (Bradley et al 2004;Hogarth et al 2003).…”

Attentional bias to angry faces using the dot-probe task? It depends when you look for it

“…Dehghani, Sharpe, & Nicholas, 2003), smokers (e.g. Hogarth, Mogg, Bradley, Duka, & Dickinson, 2003) and various other clinical and non-clinical conditions (e.g. Townshend & Duka, 2001;Wenzel & Holt, 1999).…”